Snavely v. Erie County Bd. of Revision, 96-1697

• Decision Date: 04 June 1997
• Docket Number: No. 96-1697,96-1697
• Citation: 678 N.E.2d 1373,78 Ohio St.3d 500
• Parties: SNAVELY, Appellee, v. ERIE COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION et al., Appellants.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 500

78 Ohio St.3d 500

678 N.E.2d 1373

SNAVELY, Appellee, v. ERIE COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION et al., Appellants.

No. 96-1697.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted Feb. 25, 1997.

Decided June 4, 1997.

Fred Siegel Co., L.P.A., and Fred Siegel, and Annrita S. Johnson, Cleveland, for appellee.

Teaford, Rich & Wheeler and James R. Gorry, Columbus, for appellants Erie County Auditor and Board of Revision.

Means, Bichimer, Burkholder & Baker and Karrie M. Kalail, Columbus, for appellant Sandusky City School District Board of Education.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants contend that the BTA's reversal of the BOR decision was inconsistent with our decision in LCL Income Properties v. Rhodes (1995), 71 Ohio St.3d 652, 646 N.E.2d 1108. We disagree.

In LCL Income Properties this court affirmed the dismissal of a real property valuation complaint by a board of revision when no one appeared at the hearing on behalf of the taxpayer seeking a decrease in value. Our decision in LCL Income Properties was an extension of, and based upon, our prior decision in Swetland Co. v. Evatt (1941), 139 Ohio St. 6, 21 O.O. 511, 37 N.E.2d 601, where in paragraph nine of the syllabus we held:

"A county board of revision * * * is a quasi-judicial body, and where a taxpayer files a complaint against the assessed value of his real estate and thereafter fails to attend a hearing of which he had notice and no evidence in support of such complaint is offered by or on behalf of the taxpayer, a county board of revision is justified in fixing the valuation complained of in the amount assessed by the county auditor."

In LCL Income Properties we approved dismissal as a sanction for the failure to prosecute a complaint filed with a board of revision. While as a practical matter a dismissal results in an approval of the county auditor's valuation, it does not require the board of revision to consider revaluation of the property. See Gammarino v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 388, 643 N.E.2d 1143, where a dismissed complaint was counted as a filed complaint for purposes of R.C. 5715.19(A)(2).

A comparison of the facts in LCL Income Properties and the facts in this case shows that the situations are not the same. In LCL Income Properties, no one appeared before the board of revision on behalf of the taxpayer seeking a reduction in valuation. In the present case, the taxpayer was represented by counsel at the BOR hearing. In addition, a document entitled "Owner's Opinion of Value" was presented to the BOR prior to the hearing.

In Amsdell v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 572, 574, 635 N.E.2d 11, 13, this court stated that a principal owner of property "was competent to present testimony, including his opinion of the value of the real property," before the BTA. If an owner is competent to state his or her opinion of value before the BTA, that owner is also competent to present an opinion of value before a board of revision. However, in this case the owner did not appear personally, and therefore the BOR was unable to question the owner about his Owner's Opinion of Value. The inability to question the owner would be a factor that the BOR may consider in deciding how much weight should be accorded to the Owner's Opinion of Value. In addition, in this case the failure of the owner to sign or verify in writing his written opinion of value would be another factor that may be weighed by the BOR.

Appellants further contend that R.C. 5715.13 creates a statutory burden of proof on a complainant before a board of revision. We disagree.

R.C. 5715.13 provides that "[t]he county board of revision shall not decrease any valuation complained of unless the party affected thereby or his agent makes and files with the board a written application therefor, verified by oath, showing the facts upon which it is claimed such decrease should be made." By its terms, R.C. 5715.13 is applicable only when a decrease...